A Bitter Pill/ NACO Rejects Feacham's Nonsense !

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum,

This is in response to Geoffrey Heaviside's recent message on whether NACO or

Feacham is right.

In a relationship of master-servant, domination-subordination, coloniser

-colonised, donor-recipient, many of us are only left with two options: either

we shrink our minds and intellect, or else we shut down our million-dollar AIDS

industry the next day.

This is how we have been gradually succumbed to western pressure and swallowed

many bitter pills, which many of us probably never wanted to. Today, Geoffrey

Heavisides' message is another pill in the same process, which the " doctor "

wants us to swallow. And I could not tolerate the pill for its bitterness and

vomited out the following:

First let me make clear a few assertions. I assert that the actual potential of

HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Indian subcontinent is more of a " construct " than a

" reality. " The " truth " about HIV/AIDS in the third world that has been

propagated over the years is a first world's " construct " to maintain the vested

interests of multinational and transnational NGOs joined by a band of recipient

NGOs in those countries.

By constructing such " truths " these actors actually create a " field of

intervention " through which " power " could be exercised and a hegemonic structure

and self-interest could be maintained.

What is the basis of saying that India is approaching 8-10 million mark in HIV

infection? And should we swallow it just because a western " expert " is saying

so? What is the basis of presuming that those who are undetected will have HIV?

Presuming that Indians are " consuming " good sex like westerners? (This is how

they can only think and construct the rest of the world. After all,

socialisation matters! They are socialised that way!). Don't give me examples of

behavioural modelling and simulation that is done by the MAP network.

I even question these exercises as part of the same process of " constructing the

orient. " Let us have a debate over numbers because numbers are important to win

the war! Let us question the very 5.1 million NACO-figure as we neither believe

that this is closer to real - the actual infection and its potential is much

lesser than what is estimated. If NACO claims that " the process " is certified by

WHO and UNAIDS, then the question still remains, that it runs the risk of being

a " construct " rather than a " reality. "

What is the rationale of " constructing " Indore, Jabalpur and Ujjain

as the epicentres of the epidemic? Just because the " expert in question " managed

to fly-off there and had a couple of tea-gossips with some young kids? What the

hell such a construction mean? That young people in MP have started prostituting

in exchange of study notes and bed? (I have seen this happening in US and Europe

though!).

Sick! If not they, but certainly the way you think! The argument that is being

put forth by saying that " the knowledge of sexual risk management is extremely

poor, " " I am safe, " or " kidding themselves " inherently implies that young people

in India are having multi partner sex, or having rampant sex with sex workers,

or all other sexual variants as in the west -- in short Indians are sexually

promiscuous!

This is another effort to demolish the national pride around sexual morality

that many South Asian countries still maintain. From a social constructivist

perspective, the denial of numbers means that

Indians want to keep their moral standards higher than that of the west.

The west feels frustrated/ discriminated against and to prove that " you are as

immoral as us, " there is a systematic attempt to construct India as sexually

promiscuous. It is NOT the CM of Delhi or Goa or people of India with their

wilful ignorance and moral and

cultural righteousness worsening the epidemic.

Whatever damage has been done to the epidemic is because of the highhandedness

of western institutions, ideologies, modes of prevention, delivering programme

component, and their interference in constructing programmes and policies;

pressurising NACO to change its National AIDS Control Policy of 1989; or

applying other pressure tactics that best removes the differences in sexual

moral standards between the east and the west.

And by changing its policy, NACO has done a historical blunder that can never be

undone. I attribute today's 5.1 million-figure only due to the adoption of a

liberal policy that World Bank put down our throat as a loan condition for the

National AIDS Control Programme -Phase I. Can we undo what we have done to all

these 5.1 million Indians?

Why the hell every Indian should think that they are potentially positive to

HIV? And act accordingly? It is something like saying

that every western should think that they are a potential homosexual

and act accordingly!

I am sick of listening this in every forum that " let us not talk about morality

in AIDS. " Why not talk about it? A society without moral is at peril... And the

acronym of IAS that you love is NOT " I am Safe, " BUT it is, " Indians Are Safe. "

They are safe because they have a sexual and moral culture that best protects

its individuals.

What is a society without morals? And to remind you Sir! if we act

" accordingly, " you will be nowhere! Your billion-dollar-industry will be

nowhere! Because for us " accordingly " means acting contextually, culturally and

situaltionally, which have been systematically destroyed over the past 10 years

with the power of

money.

It is high time that we assert our moral-right that what we need for our

country, let that not be decided by the colonisers from the west. Let us reclaim

what we lost to these colonizers over the

last decade.

Your conclusion tells us everything. That " the writing is on the wall but the

problem is, not enough people are reading the right wall. " Do you think people

are fools? And they can not decide what is " right " for themselves? You wrote the

wall because you think " this is what is right for the people. "

And the result is obvious -- this is NOT what they want! Yet you keep on writing

the wall because you have your own agenda to complete. People are not reading

the wall because, they think, this is not their need.

You are still writing the wall because you believe this is how a need should be

" constructed " that maintains your own best interest.

And even if people read, deciding its priority and acting accordingly, let that

be at their absolute disposal. Why this hue and cry from the west that we are

not doing the " right thing " that the west wants us to do?

Sincerely

Subir K. Kole

Research Fellow

East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

E-mail: Subir@...